Everyone, and I mean everyone, at Berkeley knew what was going on when I was there in the '70s and 80's. That experience made me a sworn enemy of the invidious idea of admitting students to any school, anywhere, based on race; any race. Despite all the preferential treatment some groups got, I personally never ran into any member of their groups majoring in Physics, Astronomy or Mathematics - and I had spent an inordinate proportion of my waking hours on campus (and some sleeping ones, too...) for a little shy of a decade. Believe me, I know what you are getting at; and agree with you completely!

Below is a sample of relevant stats, data and info apropos an intriguing focus brought to bear concerning Asian-American students in higher education in America. This is a focus not otherwise talked about in the audio and in this writer’s view is of tangential value in the context of what was discussed in the audio.

Abundant additional sources are easily obtainable by using the search words "Asian-American college admissions in America".

A look at the hard stats from UC, Berkeley campus, a public university in California (first link) reveals perhaps to some (I stress only “some”) the unexpected.

WARNING: The reality suggested by these sources may be real. This writer is not responsible for their creation. Any query should be taken up with the creator of the data. These creators are UC Berkeley Admission Office, NYTimes, and Frontline. .

A less authoritative source is provided in the fourth link below where readers can find a suggested reason for why many Asian-American students don’t check the “Asian” Box in their college entrance applications, preferring to be admitted as white Caucacians. Presumably the standard for the alternative group admission is discriminatory in the reverse direction as between Asians and Whites. Again, if there is a query on this suggestion, please direct the query to the creator of the news piece.

In my senior year at an elite college in the early '70s, I remember sitting with a group of Black friends - from at least upper middle class families - who were looking forward with great satisfaction and amusement to the preferences they could expect in applying for jobs or for further education. They didn't need those preferences, knew it and admitted it - in private.
.
The purpose of affirmative action is not to meet a quota of one kind or another by lowering standards for those who are unqualified, but to find qualified individuals who have been overlooked because of some social, usually economic, disadvantage. It ought never to go to those who have not been disadvantaged, and it must take great care not to put people into situations where they are likely to fail.

The problem of getting into Harvard with lax Affirmative Action standards, is doing well once you are in.
Your challenge just begins.
You are now among the best prepared, elite minds of your generation.
And now you have to compete on level ground.
The professors grade on a curve.
And there is no 'race' allowance, unlike the admissions office.
And many minority students cannot compete.
They enroll but soon drop out of hard sciences like engineering, maths, computers, and science.
And they segregate themselves to weak fields like Minority Studies like Black Studies, Chicano Studies and American Indian Studies.
And they are resented by their peers.
And professors practice the soft racism of low expectations.
And students socially self segregate, blame others for their problems, and become prickly reactionaries.
_____________________________
IT would be far better to go to a less elite college.
Be a top competitive student in a weaker field.
Major in hard STEM fields and possibly double major in another field.
Engage with faculty who have time for one-on-one mentorship.
Earn your position and fit in better with your peers.
_____________________________
It is like a comfortable shoe that fits, versus sexy stilleto heels that look great but torture your foot.
It is best in life to wear modest, comfortable shoes that you have earned.

College admissions is zero-sum. Affirmative action must necessarily put some applicants at a disadvantage. The data suggests that it's overwhelmingly Asian-Americans. If it were Jewish applicants, it would be considered anti-semitic and the President would be calling for an end to the practice. But it's Asian-Americans. We can walk all over them. They don't complain.

A few of my friends are currently tenured professors at Berkeley. They are Chinese.

It is funny how it is apparently the closeted view of a subset of white-identified commenters that Asians women still hop around in bound feet and Asian men are all Charlie Chan's "anyone can walk all over, they don't complain". Indeed, this view holds that Asians themselves don't know anything about being Asians. It is an invisible roomful of "Asian Experts" who do.

My fondest memory of Berkeley was a parking ticket I received outside Boalt Hall. I had fallen asleep in the car and the meter expired.

The daughter of one of my tenured professor friends applied for admission last Fall. She was rejected in favor of a a lesser-qualified non-Asian applicant. My friend's daughter had a steller scholastic record with a perfect 4 GPA and 30 points shy of full score in SAT. She also plays the piano and is a green belt in Martial Arts. She went to Mills instead. It is a shame because now my friend has to pay Mills' hefty tuition which would have been nothing as a part of a professor's employment benefit package had her daughter been able to attend Berkeley.

I think preferential treatment stinks. Like you, I am a sworn enemy of invidious discrimination based on race, any race, anywhere, when meritocracy MUST be the standard. Imagine going to a brain surgeon who qualified because he/she is of a "preferred" race. [Not that this will ever happen. By that stage of the game, real merit kicks in.] America's higher education is in a state of crisis. We see graduates who can't write, can't think, and don't know they are that bad.

Remember, though, that the most significant unintended consequence of affirmative action is the mismatch problem. If that's resulting in more black students being admitted to schools for which they're academically under-prepared, the corollary is that more Asian students will be admitted to schools for which they're over-prepared.

But the mere fact that they graduate at higher rates doesn't necessarily mean that Asian Americans are not disadvantaged. If (thanks, I suspect, to cultural factors) they qualify (exclusive of affirmative action) at far higher rates than other groups, they can be disadvantaged and still end up in college at higher rates.
.
It's not that they get admitted at lower absolute rates. It's that they get admitted at lower rates relative to what they would get admitted at otherwise.

It seems more apparent that you don't understand how stats work. If they (Asians) are graduating at higher rates, it means one of two things - either they're attending at higher rates than everyone else, or they're just smarter than everyone else (I suspect the former, they're not smarter though they often work harder). It certainly doesn't imply lower rates of admittance.
.
perhaps my original post needs clarification - Asian-Americans have the highest percentage of degree holders per capita, not that a higher percentage of those who attend college graduate.

Ah, but our blogs are pure meritocracy. People self-select to come here. (OK, there are a handful who are paid, by their government or company, to be here. But in general.) And how many Recommends you get depends on the worth of what you say.
.
Of course, unlike universities, etc., one more person coming here doesn't crowd out someone else. So there would be no problem even if we did have some kind of affirmative action.

"In the Graduate Fast Stream, 12.1 per cent of applicants, and 30.9 per cent of successful candidates were from Oxford and Cambridge Universities."https://www.gov.uk/.../Annual_Report_2011_narrative_final_pw.pdf

In the uk oxbridges uncompetive pratices, such as artibary critiera used for selection that parts that can be taught and learned and are at private schools oxbridge have large overrepsentation of private educated.

The oxbridge funding that is only available if parents went there has effect of being racist as it takes a privilage segment of society from the past renforces it through funding today.
Oxbridges did parents attend question.

For someone employment and organizations if you strip out the oxbridghe figures you achive a higher diversity.

Its oxbridge uncompetive pratices, so called merit on learned processes. May have come under greater scuritiney if had had some affermative actin type princples.

Although the brittish system is predomately about running privilage system rather than actually racism its insider outsider privalge for legacey reasons the period of social mobility in the mid 20th century was before many groups were established.

When ever people talk about affermative action, postive discrimination people seem to think this is changing from a merit based system to a non merit based discriminatory one. However may just be changing from one discriminatory non merit based system to another.

I wonder with oxbridge if they set a high exam results as they do, then randomally allocated the places to a selection of people who get results. May end up with a higher standard and more diverse range of people than the current system. Currently exams and the artitary critieras as tie breakers can have more to do with background than ability also can be easily learned if coached for and prepare for do the right activties. Like that summer working for international charity when poor people are working tesco to pay the rent.

The roundedness elments the system questioning. Then the assocaited and proffessors that do the checks on students for government jobs background check has more mechism for oxbridge.

Although oxbridge may have a large government local internation quasis government international organizations. Also may be less overresntation in city jobs.

For a small percentage of the population it has a very large overrepresentation.

May be its all on merit but with 40 percent private edudcates and funding the only pays for peoples who parents been there lots of other sillyness i very much doubt its just so happens ability has been alloted this way.

Although not sure if affermative action good or not. It seems when mention it people get concerned about the lack of merit. When we never worried about that in UK with Oxbridge it appears as long as the lack of merit if going on a british system privilage system that is ok. But if consider doing it on way that may favour less privilaged then that not acceptable. This could be because government civil service and people run many things and set the agenda wants there less than smart kids to go to oxbridge. So this is quietly forgotton about.

With the performace of the british privilaged types being less than stella of late then may be its times for change. I supose it comes down to who runs britian.